
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 11:18:56 0000, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On 8 Mar 2006 06:29:23 0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 7 Mar 2006 07:49:43 0800, "George Dishman"
>>>> <[email protected]>
>>
>>>> >In detail yes, but you can get a reasonable estimate
>>>> >by using the average density along the path.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe....in most situations.
>>>
>>>Consider what the integral along the line of sight
>>>of the density means. Suppose ther were two
>>>pockets along the line with perfect vacuum between,
>>>would the distance between them matter? Treat the
>>>inhomogenous medium as a series of pockets so
>>>small each contains only one atom (or whatever).
>>>Does the distance between them matter?
>>>
>>>The effect should be independent of the distribution
>>>along the line and only dependent on the total.
>>
>> Yes you are probably right if the relationship is linear..
>> but I wouldn't assume that it always was.
>
>The relation betwen deltaspeed and speed
>becomes linear as v approaches c (it can't
>be second order or light at cv would also
>be slowed if light at c+v is slowed.)
>
>If dv/ds is proportional to (vc) then the
>speed approaches c exponentially.
>
>>>> >> L would vary with conditions in te pocket.
>...
>> Yes. I'm still not sure how you define L though.
>> ...something like '1/[light speed change per metre/sec/(kgm/m^3)]'
>
>You may disagree about the mechanism but think
>of it this way for a moment. As the light passes
>through the ISM, it encounters charged particles.
>Each encounter changes the speed by an amount
>proportional to (vc). Between encounters the
>speed is constant. A plot of speed versus distance
>would look like a staircase with the height of the
>steps reducing as v gets closer to c.
>
>Overall, the final value of vc is the initial
>value time e^(kn) where n is the number of
>encounters and k is some fundamental constant.
>
>For uniform density, the number of encounters
>per unit distance is related to the effective
>crosssection of the particle at the encounter
>and the distance. The crosssectional area times
>the distance defines a volume and n is the number
>of particles in that volume.
>
>The constant k is then the fractional change of
>(cv) per encounter.
You are describing the exponential nature of conventional extinction. That's OK
by me except that in Haether, the rates of change are so low that speed of any
light entring or generated inside the pocket never gets even close to the c/n
for that pocket. In other words most light passes through with very little
change either up or down...but what change there is tends to unify the speed of
all light passing through.
>>>> >I think your feel for this is overoptimistic, certainly
>>>> >anything over a couple of light years would give
>>>> >multiple spectra for the pulsar we looked at and the
>>>> >site mentioned the other day quotes figures in AU
>>>> >which sounds about right. You need to do some
>>>> >real work on that Henry, not just guess.
>>>>
>>>> The pulsar would have to be in orbit with a quite high peripheral
>>>> velocity. Its
>>>> distance from the observer is also crucial to what the observer sees.
>>>
>>>The pulsar we examined has a speed around 28km/s,
>>>almost the same as Earth. That would vary as the
>>>cube root of the mass of the system (known period)
>>>so is pretty insensistive. The critical distance is only
>>>3.5 light years, less than our nearest neighbour, so
>>>you certainly need to almost eliminate the "+v" part
>>>within a few light years.
>>
>> How far was it from Earth?
>
>About 3617 light years
>
>> What is its period?
>
>Orbital period 1.5 days.
>
>Mean pulse period 2.95ms.
What makes you think it is orbiting something else?
>>>>
>>>> IIRC, the experiment involved running around the carousel in opposite
>>>> directions. The difference is enormous, like I said.
>>>
>>>Run round a static carousel in opposite directions and
>>>the force against the rail is identical. Rotate it at a
>>>speed of once every 400000 years and you won't feel
>>>the difference unless you are a lot more sensitive than I.
>>
>> An interferometer will detect that order of 'force change'.
>
>How often do you want to go round this loop?
>I am not an interferometer. An interferometer
>could detect it but I could not "FEEL" it, it
>is not a "HUGE EFFECT" in human terms.
It is a huge effect if your speed wrt the carousel is considerable compared
with the peripheral speed of the carousel. If the speeds are equal but
opposite, you can run in the same spot without an forces on you at all. Try
running the opposite way and you will be thrown of immediately.
>>>> >Not kid, educate, but you choose to remain ignorant.
>>>>
>>>> Using a different geometry doesn't alter the basic question.
>>>
>>>The Earth isn't round because we "use" spherical
>>>trig., roundness is a property of the Earth and the
>>>geometry of spacetime isn't Riemann because of
>>>antything we "use", it is a physical property and it
>>>is the cause that answers your question.
>>
>> Have you ever considerd that 'Reimann geometry' is just a maths gimmick
>> with no
>> physical significance?
>
>Einstein's field equations are the maths, have you
>considered that 'Reimann geometry' is a statement
>about the physical nature of spacetime just as
>roundness is a statement about an intrinsic physical
>property of the Earth, the Earth isn't flat no matter
>how you 'represent' or 'plot' it. When I talk of what
>kind of geometry applies, I am discussing the physical
>property being represented, not the form of the
>representation.
It makes no difference how you represent the second postulate. When it is
transposed into the '3D, 1T' geometry we use for all experiments, it demands
that all light moving in any particular dierection moves at the same speed. SR
is plain old aether theory.
>
>>>> SR is just a subset of LET.
>>>
>>>Wrong way round, LT is just a disguised version
>>>of SR.
>>>
>>>> It deals with the way 'contracted' frames see things in other contracted
>>>> frames. I don't think Lorentz went that far.
>>>
>>>He included contraction, he was aware of time
>>>dilation but I don't think he consider mass increase.
>>>In these groups, "LET" isn't what Lorentz proposed
>>>but a name for whatever set of ad hoc phenomena
>>>based on aether interactions are required to be
>>>compatible with SR but with absolute simultaneity.
>>
>> Let me put that another way.
>> Aether theories generally assume ONE absolute aether.
>
>Depends what you mean by 'absolute', some can be
>like turbulent gas with variable density.
OK
>
>> Absolute movement results
>> in REAL physical contractions of mass, timeflow and length.
>
>That only applies to the modern meaning of "LET"
>and is phenomenological, there is no actual model
>of an aether that achieves it AFAIK. Basic aether
>theory just has some substance which is the carrier
>of EM.
>
>> What aether theories DO NOT consider is the appearance of one such
>> contracted
>> object or clock in another differently contracted FoR.
>
>LET does, but you have to do so explicitly.
>
>> If you try to analyse this, you get some pretty horrible equations that
>> simplify when v<<c to SR. However you immediately run into problems
>> because of
>> the v^2 terms. Results are ambiguous.
>
>No, for LET the equations are identical to SR for
>all speeds. It is essentially by definition, the
>effects assumed are whatever it takes to make the
>equations the same. The LET results are unambiguous
>and always identical to SR.
You didn't read what I said.
>>>> >Yes I have, you cannot complete your program without
>>>> >making a decision as to whether the light will move
>>>> >symmetrically (SR) or asymmetrically (aether), those
>>>> >are mutually exclusive which disproves your claim that
>>>> >they are the same.
>>>>
>>>> Aether theory says that it will always be MEASURED as moving
>>>> symmetrically
>>>> whether it does or not.
>>>
>>>And if you added rulers and clocks you could
>>>demonstrate that, but you CANNOT complete
>>>your program without making that decision,
>>>the alternatives are mutually exclusive.
>>
>> My program shows the actual physics.
>
>As it should, and hence the speeds in the second
>frame would be symmetrical for SR but asymmetrical
>for all aether theories including LET. They are
>mutually exclusive.
George, according to SR ALL light moving in any particular direction does so at
the same speed. It doesn't matter how many sources I add to my program, all the
additional light pulses will travel like the ones I have shown.
the value of the speed is irrelevant because.
You seem obseesed with the idea that if I add another observer frame, the pulse
speed will be 'c' wrt that frame.
I think you are completely missing the point.
>
>> ..and yes it makes SR appear bloody
>> stupid.
>
>(in your opinion) and clearly different to
>any aether theory.
>
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> > _____________________O__ 
>>>> >> >>>> > S ___/  screen
>>>> >> >>>> > \_____________________O__ 
>>>> >> >>>> > 
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> >You get a fringe pattern. Now move
>>>> >> >>>> >one loop along the fibre:
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> > _____________________O__ 
>>>> >> >>>> > S ___/  screen
>>>> >> >>>> > \__O_____________________ 
>>>> >> >>>> > 
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> It would have to be done precisely to maintain a perfectly
>>>> >> >> constant
>>>> >> >> tension.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Use minimal tension to straighten the fibre,
>>>> >> >reduce it in small steps measuring the
>>>> >> >stretching of an elastic band, plot the
>>>> >> >fringes and project the intercept at zero
>>>> >> >tension.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I would wind hundreds of turns around a 5 cm diameter former then
>>>> >> roll that
>>>> >> carefully from one end to the other, making sure no turns crossed
>>>> >> over any
>>>> >> others.
>>>> >
>>>> >All you need is a long flat surface to roll it along, e.g. a
>>>> >pavement ;)
>>>> >
>>>> >However, you might find you only need one turn.
>>>>
>>>> No you would need hundreds, tightly wound.
>>>
>>>Proof please.
>>
>> Obviously the effect will be very small even in hundreds of turns.
>
>Proof please.
>
>>>> >> It might be possible. With my help, you could still become famous
>>>> >> George.
>>>> >
>>>> >Not me, the credit goes to the person who does the
>>>> >experiment regardless of who suggests it.
>>>>
>>>> That was before everything here was recorded on google.
>>>
>>>Letters between scientists have been recorded
>>>for years, those who do the work get the credit.
>>
>> Yes I know. The head of the department usually gets all the glory.
>
>Consider Kepler, Newton and the inverse square law.
>
>>>> >> That will inevitably lead us to the conclusion that SR explains the
>>>> >> the iFoG
>>>> >> effect but for the wrong reasons.
>>>> >
>>>> >No, no Henry, you use the known result to predict how
>>>> >much slowing is needed to make _ballistic_ theory fit.
>>>>
>>>> Yes all right. It should tell us something.
>>>
>>>It should give you one specific formula that will
>>>match the result for any size and shape of
>>>Sagnac setup. That's all you need to predict the
>>>outcome of your experiment.
>>
>> Well I might try that just to see. It should give an order of magnitude at
>> least.
>
>No, it should give you an exact result.
>
>> ..but I don't believe the fringe shift matches the aether prediction
>> exactly.
>
>IIRC the recent test I cited matched to about
>3 parts in 10^7, good enough to predict for
>any home experiment you might try.
>
>>>It would but it is impractical. The fibres would be of different
>>>length and the process of rolling and unrolling may change
>>>the length. Keeping a constant number of turns and moving
>>>their location should eliminate that and an interferometric
>>>setup gives you the sensitivity you need. Putting an identical
>>>turn in each fibre means you are not trying to create a pattern
>>>with two beams moving at different speeds and means the
>>>length of the fibres beyond the turns cancels out.
>>>
>>>> That was why I prefer MY experiment to yours.
>>>
>>>Do whichever you like, you're the one doing it, but
>>>don't use the difficulties of doing yours as an excuse
>>>for not doing my version.
>>
>> All right, here is a very simple and obvious compromise between the two.
>> The
>> fibre doesn't have to be moved at all.
>>
>> S_______________>_______________
>> D_O_____________<_______________
>>
>> All we have to do is set up a long fibre with a tightly would coil at one
>> end.
>> We then send pulses in both directions simultaneously and monitor their
>> arrival
>> times on a high speed CRO.
>
>If you use a fast laser diode and photdiode and apply
>sine wave modulation, you can connect them in X/Y mode
>on the scope and form a Lissajous figure. You can measure
>a small fraction of a cycle shift as a displacement from
>when the figure is a 45 degree line. (Building such a
>setup for students to use was my final year project.)
yes that's a good way to do it.
So all we need is a coil in one of the fibres and we can prove Einstein wrong.
>
>However, even with that, an interferometer setup will
>be much more sensitive.
Not necessarily.
>
>> As drawn above, the pulse from S should travel for most of the way at c/n,
>> slowing only at the end when it negotiates the coil.
>> The reverse pulse is slowed immediately and travels most of the way at
>> that
>> lesser speed.
>>
>> Hey, this is really simple. The only difficulties relate to splitting the
>> pulse
>> so it enters both fibres simultaneously and in detecting same. I should
>> imagine
>> iFoG manufacturers have already solved these problems.
>
>The method is to take two bits of fibre held
>against each other and fuse them with a flame.
>It might take some practice though. It should
>look like this:
>
> ___ ___
> \____/
> ___/ \___
>
>Light entering on the left is mostly split 50:50
>into the two arms on the right but a small
>fraction reflects back out the other left arm.
OK
>
>> I can almost feel that Nobel coming on....
>>
>>>> Note it cannot be assumed
>>>> that light confined to a circular path is symmetrical across the
>>>> wavefront. By
>>>> htat I mean the energy maximum would be offset towards the outside
>>>> rather than
>>>> in the middle as in the straight line case. Do you see what I mean here?
>>>
>>>I know what you mean, I believe the intensity is
>>>constrained to have a Gaussian distribution in a
>>>monomode fibre.
>>
>> But I say it will be slightly distorted in a round coil.
>
>I know but that doesn't change the speed, only
>the path length. You would need to calculate
>how much path length change it would produce.
It could change the 'change in speed' that I am claiming occurs anyway..
>>>> The two effects are additive anyway. So a positive result would still
>>>> have to
>>>> be interpreted in terms of the two.
>>>
>>>The second effect doesn't alter the speed cumulatively
>>>so it won't affect your experiment.
>>
>> True.. but it affects the path length of the 'peak'.
>>
>>>Any effect from the
>>>static loops applies regardless of where it occurs along
>>>the fibre so won't influence the measurents in my version.
>>
>> See what you think of my compromise.
>
>Workable but much less sensitive.
Its sensitivity depends on the length of fibre and the diameter of hte coil.
>You need to
>calculate the number of turns required to see
>if it is practical with the scope you have or
>if you need to use an interferometric setup.
>My version also has the advantage that no scope
>is required, you can see the fringes move.
I think either method would work.
>
>George
>
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

